| Lee Allen Martin Plaintiff, VS. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Defendants. | ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE #01CV324209 |
REQUEST NO. 1: "How many photographs of licensed drivers does the defendant maintain? What is the size of the individual photograph in bytes. What is the storage capacity of the system that maintains these photos? State the location of the system, and the operating system, software, and the Oath or Affirmation of the defendant employee charged with the responsibility (sic) of maintaining said system."
ANSWER: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation, the total number of licensed drivers in the state of Missouri is approximately four million. However, the Director knows of no way to determine how many photos of licensed drivers are maintained by the Department of Revenue because many of these licensee have multiple photos that were taken at each license renewal, and because a portion of these licensee are valid without photo.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST in that they fail to state the number of photos, location of the system, operating system, software, and Oath or Affirmation of the defendant employee charged with the responsibility of maintaining said system. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.2: "Please state whether or not the record, Application for a driver's license, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment are in the possession of the Custodian of Record for the Department of Revenue. State all locations that the individual record is maintained. Provide a schedule for the maintenance (sic) of individual record. State whether the individual record is produced in electronic format. State the location of any electronic devise (sic) used in the production of any record requested in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment. If defendant contends that electronic records have been destroyed please state the destruction schedule, and all authorization to destroy electronic records."
ANSWER NO.2: Objection. This interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and assumes facts not in evidence. The Director does not know what records plaintiff is referring to in the statement "any record requested in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment."
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.3. Please state whether or not the record, Policy and Procedures of the Department of Personnel, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment are in the possession of the Custodian of Record for the Department of Revenue. State all locations that the individual record is maintained. Provide a schedule for the maintenance (sic) of individual record. State whether the individual record is produced in electronic format. State what electronic device was used to produce the record. State the location of any electronic devise used in the production of any record requested in the Petition for declaratory Judgment. If the defendant contends that the electronic records have been destroyed please state the destruction schedule, and all authorization to destroy electronic records."
ANSWER NO.3: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, regarding "whether or not the record, Policy and Procedures of the Department of Personnel, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment are in the possession of the Custodian of Record for the Department of Revenue," the answer is yes. Further, the Director will make the policy and procedures of the Department available in paper format for plaintiff to view, by appointment, at the Truman Building in Jefferson City.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.4: "Please state whether or not the record, Policy and Procedures concerning interaction between department (sic) of Public Safety personnel and the Department of Revenue Personnel, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment are in the possession of the Custodian of Record for the Department of Revenue. State all locations that the individual record is maintained. Provide a schedule for the maintenance (sic) of the individual record. State whether the individual record is produced in electronic format. State what electronic device was used to produce the record. State the location of any electronic devise (sic) used in the production of any record requested in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment. If defendant contends that the electronic records have been destroyed please state the destruction schedule, and all authorization to destroy electronic records."
ANSWER NO.4: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Director does not know what record the plaintiff is referring to in the statement "the record, Policy and Procedures concerning interaction between department (sic) of Public Safety personnel and the Department of Revenue Personnel, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment." To answer this question accurately, the Director needs a specific list of what documents to which this interrogatory is referring.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.5: "Please state whether or not the record, Policy and Procedures of the defendant departments legal division, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment are in possession of the Custodian of Record for the Department of Revenue. State all locations that the individual record is maintained. Provide a schedule for the maintenance (sic) of individual record. State whether the individual record is produced in electronic format. State what electronic device was used to produce the record. State the location of any electronic devise used in the production of any record requested in the Petition for declaratory Judgment. If defendant contends that electronic records have been destroyed please state the destruction schedule, and all authorization to destroy electronic records."
ANSWER NO.5: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is over broad and burdensome. The Director does not know what records plaintiff is referring to in the statement "the record Policy and Procedures of the defendant departments legal division, in question in the Petition for Declaratory Judgment." To answer this question accurately, the Director needs a specific list of what documents to which this interrogatory is referring.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.6: "Please list all salaried defendant department personnel, and provide the affirmation for the office that they hold, the date that the affirmation was given, and where this affirmation is retained."
ANSWER NO.6: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is over broad and burdensome and is vague and ambiguous. As many employees of the Department of Revenue, if not most, are salaried employees, this interrogatory would be quite burdensome. However, information regarding personnel salaried under the Department of Revenue, along with all state employees, are available as published within the State Manual. Furthermore, the Director does not have any information to satisfy the "affirmation for the office" portion of this request.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.7: "Please list all documents for one Lee Allen Martin, 492-66-2935, that is in the possession of the Department of Revenue (sic). Including all divisions of defendant department. State how these documents are maintained. The physical nature of the records, i.e. microfilm, paper, digital, metaphysical etc."
ANSWER NO.7: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is over broad and burdensome and is vague and ambiguous. The Director, in the spirit of cooperation, provided a copy of plaintiff's Department of Revenue driving record file to plaintiff in Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories. A determination of documents are included in that file may be made by plaintiff's reference to that file in his possession. Requests for information regarding other files or documents are not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and are over broad and burdensome.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.8: "Please define all symbols, abbreviations, and code maintained in all defendant department documents. Please state where these definitions are maintained, who the custodian of record is for the definitions, and whether or not they are in electronic format. If the defendant by and through counsel claims to be confused by the request please refer to the attachment provided by the defendant in the Defendant's Answer for Request for Production of Documents, but please do not limit the definition to the ones maintained on the attachment."
ANSWER NO.8: Objection. This request is vague and ambiguous, is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is over broad and burdensome. The Director does not know what records plaintiff is referring to in the statement "the attachment provided by the defendant in the Defendant's Answer for Request for Production of Documents " To answer the question accurately, the Director needs a specific list of what documents to which this interrogatory is referring.
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
REQUEST NO.9: "Please provide all email addresses of the defendant department including defendant counsel. State which employees do not have an email address. Be sure to include the admitted email address of Keith D. Holcomb (sic) and all other legal department personnel that practise (sic) before the federal court."
ANSWER NO.9: Objection. This request is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is over broad and burdensome. However, the requested information may be accessed via the internet at the following web site: www.oa.state.mo.us/cgi-bin/email/email.htm .
ARGUMENT: The defendant is non-responsive in fully answering the aforementioned REQUEST. The request is not vague or ambiguous in that it specifically details the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 56.01(b)(1). State ex rel. Plank v. Koehr , 831 S.W.2d 926, 927 (Mo. banc 1992).
Wherefore, the Plaintiff has shown that the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the burden to prove that they are not is upon the defendant, and where claims by the defendant that doing their job is over broad and burdensome can not stand as a blanket objection without specification. Plaintiff must request that the Honorable Compel the Answers to the aforementioned Request for Interrogatories.
So certified: _____________________________
Lee Allen Martin